San Marco, Byzantium, and the Myths of Venice

Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine Symposia and Colloquia Series Editor Margaret Mullett Editorial Board John Duffy John Haldon Ioli Kalavrezou

San Marco, Byzantium, and the Myths of Venice

Edited by Henry Maguire and Robert S. Nelson

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Washington, D.C.

2010 by Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. 15 14 13 12 11 10 1 2 3 4 5 6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data San Marco, Byzantium, and the myths of Venice / edited by Henry Maguire and Robert S. Nelson. 1st ed. p. cm. (Dumbarton Oaks Byzantine symposia and colloquia) Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-88402-360-9 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. ArtPolitical aspectsItalyVenice. 2. Basilica di San Marco (Venice, Italy) 3. Decoration and ornament, ArchitecturalItalyVenice. 4. Art, MedievalItalyVenice. 5. Art, ByzantineInfluence. I. Maguire, Henry, 1943 II. Nelson, Robert S., 1947 n72.p6s26 2010 726.50945311dc22

2010001945

www.doaks.org/publications Designed and typeset by Barbara Haines jacket images: Frontcover, Constantinopolitan sculpture on the south side of San Marco, photo courtesy of Rob Nelson; back cover, Lorenzo Bastiani, Piazzetta de San Marco, ca. 1487, courtesy of the Museo Correr, Venice.

c oN t e N t S

plan of san marco vi acknowledgments viii

Introduction 1

1

Henry Maguire and Robert S. Nelson

Disiecta membra: Ranieri Zeno, the Imitation of Constantinople, the Spolia Style, and Justice at San Marco 7Fabio Barry

2

The History of Legends and the Legends of History: The Pilastri Acritani in Venice 63Robert S. Nelson

3

The Aniketos Icon and the Display of Relics in the Decoration of San Marco 91Henry Maguire

4 Fashioning a Faade: The Construction of Venetian Identity on the Exterior of San MarcoMichael Jacoff

113

5 Cultural Hybridity in Medieval Venice: Reinventing the East at San Marco after the Fourth CrusadeThomas E. A. Dale

151

6 7

Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 12001400Holger A. Klein

193

Mosaic Matters: Questions of Manufacturing and Mosaicists in the Mosaics of San Marco, Venice 227Liz James

8 Venice and Its Doge in the Grand Design: Andrea Dandolo and the Fourteenth-Century Mosaics of the BaptisteryDebra Pincus abbreviations 273 about the authors 277 index 279

245

vi

San Marco, Plan viewkey to features 1 Altar, high 2 Aniketos icon 3 Baptistery 4 Bigonzo 5 Capitello ciborium 6 Cappella di San Clemente 7 Cappella di SantIsidoro 8 Cappella di San Pietro 9 Cappella Zen 10 Colonna del Bando 11 Corridor with relief showing relics 12 St. George, relief 13 Nicopeia, altar 14 Pala dOro 10 Pietra del Bando 1516 Pilastri Acritani 17 Pilastro del Miracolo 18 Porta di SantAlipio 19 Porta dei Fiori 20 Porta di San Giovanni 21 Porta da Mar 22 Pulpit, main 23 St. Theodore, relief 24 Tetrarchs 25 Tomb of Doge Andrea Dandolo 26 Tomb of Doge Giovanni Soranzo 27 Treasury 28 Treasury portal 29 Trophy wall of the treasury key to mosaics A Abraham cupola B Ascension cupola C Apparitio D Creation cupola E Crucifixion FH Joseph cupolas I Last Judgment J Life of St. Mark K Moses cupola LM Noah N Salome OR Translation of St. Mark

vii

Ac k Now l e d gM e N t S

the editors would like to thank those who have made this collection of studies possible: first, the Senior Fellows in the Byzantine Program at Dumbarton Oaks and Alice-Mary Talbot, then its Director of Studies, for agreeing to cosponsor in 2007 a colloquium on the topic of this book, covering the costs of assembling the speakers in Baltimore, and supporting this publication; second, the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, the Department of the History of Art, and the Department of History at Johns Hopkins University for undertaking to house the gathering and for providing additional moral and financial support. We are grateful to Laura Blom and Ittai Weinryb, who helped with the organization of the conference in Baltimore, and to Polly Evans, in Washington, D.C., who has worked on putting together both the meeting and its subsequent publication. We also thank Thomas Dale for his initial encouragement to embark on the project, and all the other contributors who have taken time out of their busy schedules first to participate in the colloquium and then to create this book. Henry Maguire Robert S. Nelson

viii

IntroductionHENRY MAGUIRE and ROBERT S. NELSON

in one of his letters, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe compared the church of San Marco in Venice to a colossal crab.1 The simile may not be entirely flattering, but it does evoke vividly the buildings many excrescences and accretions, while bringing to mind its ambivalent situation confronting both the land and the sea. This book is largely concerned with these two characteristics evinced by Goethes comparison. It assesses the significance of the various additions in sculpture, mosaic, and metalwork that the Venetians made to the church and its immediate surroundings, particularly in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, when the core of the building had already been completed. It also examines the church and its decoration in relation to the overseas interests of Venice, on the one hand, and mainland Italy, on the other. The papers in this volume were originally presented, in a different form, in the colloquium From Enrico to Andrea Dandolo: Imitation, Appropriation, and Meaning at San Marco in Venice, jointly sponsored by Dumbarton Oaks and Johns Hopkins University, held in Baltimore in May 2007. The participants discussed the decoration of San Marco as an assemblage of mosaics, sculptures, and reliquaries, of which some were Venetian productions, but others were spolia or imitation spolia. The speakers addressed the diverse styles of these works, whether Late Roman, Early Christian, Byzantine, Islamic, or Gothic, and explored their sources, meanings, and significance, both individually and as an ensemble. These essays have been generated from those papers and the fruitful dialogues that took place subsequently between the speakers and the audience and among the speakers themselves.1 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Letters from Goethe, trans. M. von Herzfeld and C. Melvil Sym (Edinburgh, 1957), 173.

1

The sequence of this book is broadly topographical. The first three contributions, by Fabio Barry, Robert Nelson, and Henry Maguire, are primarily concerned with San Marcos south, sea-facing faade and its immediate surroundings. The paper by Michael Jacoff is devoted to the west faade facing the Piazza, while that of Thomas Dale provides a hinge between the churchs west front and its interior. The authors of the final three papers are all mainly concerned with different aspects of the inside of the church: Holger Klein with the Pala dOro of the high altar and the reliquaries in the treasury, Liz James with the wall and vault mosaics, and Debra Pincus with the fourteenth-century decoration of the baptistery. All work on the church of San Marco owes a great debt to Otto Demus. This eminent Viennese scholar made the study of the church the center of his long and distinguished career, from his dissertation on the mosaics of 1927 (published eight years later), to his 1960 study of architecture and sculpture that is often cited in the following pages, and to what in many ways is his culminating book, the four-volume study of the mosaics that appeared in 1984 and was reissued in an abridged format edited by Herbert L. Kessler in 1988.2 Demus once wrote that such a major monument had been comparatively little studied, in part, because it was thought that Ferdinando Onganias lavish publication in the later nineteenth century had exhausted the topic.3 Onganias books brought to the worlds attention a monument whose fame had increased quickly from midcentury, and their exquisite illustrations document aspects of the church before twentieth-century pollution had taken its toll. However, the miscellaneous and often undigested information found there has now been supplanted for all but historiographic inquiries by Demuss studies. We would be foolish dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants and boasting of how far we can see if we did not acknowledge that we build upon his scholarly edifice. Nonetheless, the authors of our volume do add if not additional height at least different points of view. In part, this is due to larger developments in the humanities since the second and third quarters of the last century, the periods of genesis of Demuss work. Because of his careful documentation, we have been able to apply recent approaches that are suggested by words in our titles. In a wide-ranging article, Barry understands the several eastern monuments on the south side of the church as spolia, a term from antiquity and obviously known to Demus, but since his book of 1960, spolia studies have burgeoned.4 Nelsons2 Die Mosaiken von S. Marco in Venedig (Baden bei Wien, 1935); The Church of San Marco in Venice: History, Architecture, Sculpture (Washington, DC, 1960); The Mosaics of San Marco in Venice (Chicago, 1984); The Mosaic Decoration of San Marco, Venice (Chicago, 1988). 3 Demus, The Mosaics of San Marco in Venice, 1:ix; F. Ongania, La basilica di San Marco in Venezia, 21 vols. (Venice, 188093). 4 E.g., D. Kinney, Spolia: Damnatio and Renovatio Memoriae, Memoirs of the American Academy at Rome 42 (1997): 11748; R. Mller, Sic hostes Ianua frangit: Spolien und Trophen im

2

HENRY MAGUIRE and ROBERT S. NELSON

title plays on an article by the English anthropologist Alfred Gell and works from Gells concern for the agency of socially important artifacts.5 For Maguire, the act of display is important to the analysis of a relief in the Cappella Zen. A concern for display itself has lately appeared in many subfields of art history.6 Jacoff employs social science concepts now widespread in the humanities for his investigation of the construction of identity at San Marco.7 Dale evokes a key concept of postcolonial studies, cultural hybridity, to discuss the program of the church after 1204.8 Kleins title evokes the several meanings of fashioning in his analysis of the great Pala dOro at the altar of San Marco and the reliquaries in the church treasury.9 James investigates the materiality of mosaics in ways that go beyond Demuss traditional, but important, archaeology, and Debra Pincus employs past and present, words associated with the English social history journal, in the title of her article about the baptistery mosaics, an important section of the church that Demus did not study. In spite of the diverse and diverging perspectives taken, all papers focus on one central problem, namely, how are we to interpret the rich mantle of decoration with which the Venetians covered their state church during the Middle Ages? The question can be broken down into four major themes, each of which runs throughout the pages in this book. The first theme is the presence or absence of a determined program or programs that united all, or some, of the individual accretions to the church. Were the embellishments of San Marco, in the words of James, part of a vast propaganda package, not unified in their conception and creation, but nevertheless all pointing in the same basic direction? Or were the various additions to the church accidental, in the sense that they were not related to a grand design but were merely the result of individual acts of piety or opportunistic plunder? Many of the contributors to this book, including Maguire, Jacoff, Dale, Klein, and Pincus, argue strongly that the accretions did follow an agenda, or rather several agendas, that overlapped and sometimes conflicted with each other. As Barry points out in his paper, the striking fact that the west

mittelalterlichen Genua (Weimar, 2002); M. F. Hansen, The Eloquence of Appropriation: Prolegomena to an Understanding of Spolia in Early Christian Rome (Rome, 2003). 5 A. Gell, The Technology of Enchantment and the Enchantment of Technology, in J. Coote and A. Shelton, eds., Anthropology, Art, and Aesthetics (New York, 1992), 4063; A. Gell, Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory (New York, 1998). 6 E.g., a special issue of the journal Art History 30, no. 4 (2007), which has been published separately as D. Cherry and F. Cullen, eds., Spectacle and Display (Malden, MA, 2007). 7 A useful accounting of identity, especially sexual or gender identity, is R. Meyer, Identity, in Critical Terms for Art History, ed. R. S. Nelson and R. Shiff, 2nd ed. (Chicago, 2003), 34557. 8 Hybridity is perhaps most associated with the work of Homi Bhabha, especially his The Location of Culture (New York, 1994). 9 One of the most influential studies from this perspective is S. Greenblatt, Renaissance SelfFashioning: From More to Shakespeare (Chicago, 1980). It has spawned studies of a wide range of phenomena, e.g., N. Abu El-Haj, Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial SelfFashioning in Israeli Society (Chicago, 2001).

Introduction

3

faade of San Marco, together with its famous horses, was meticulously depicted in mosaic over the Porta di SantAlipio, on the very faade itself, demonstrates that the Venetians considered it to be a bearer of meaning and not merely an accidental backdrop to their daily lives. A second theme that pervades this book is the mutability of the meanings attached to the building, its individual components, and the embellishment of its surroundings. As Barry shows in the case of the porphyry group of the four Tetrarchs, and Nelson in the case of the twin piers known as the Pilastri Acritani, interpretations could change radically over the centuries. The mutability of meanings creates a special problem in the case of Venice. Even though the Venetians produced many chronicles during the Middle Ages, they left relatively little writing that was specifically concerned with works of art. In this respect, the Venetians differed from the Byzantines, who produced a rich corpus of literature about both the physical appearance and the ideology of their art. Most of the written interpretations of the works associated with San Marco date to the postmedieval period, so there is always a problem of how far these interpretations found in the later texts were also current at the time that the works of art were originally commissioned or set in place on the church. Another question concerns the overall meaning of San Marco and its decoration. If the various components acted in concert to convey an overall propaganda package, to what extent was there an evolution in this encompassing meaning as the circumstances of the city changed? Both Klein and Pincus argue that in the fourteenth century Andrea Dandolo oversaw a program of new commissions and new presentations of earlier Byzantine works that was intended not only to evoke Venices past conquest of Byzantium but also to create a new and distinct identity for the city that was beginning its expansion onto the Italian mainland. The patronage of Andrea Dandolo brings us to a third theme, namely, the tension between Venices emulation of Byzantium and its competition with Italian cities. Thus, Barry shows how the Piazza and the Piazzetta that fronted San Marco were inspired not only by the imperial fora of Constantinople but more specifically by its hippodrome, and how the twin columns at the edge of the Piazzetta evoked the triumphal columns of the Byzantine city. Klein argues that through the import of relics from the East and the fashioning of appropriate reliquaries for them Venice was able to replace Constantinople as the principal repository of sacred remains in the medieval world. Dale emphasizes the role of Byzantium as a mediator of artistic forms from the Near East, while both Pincus and James discuss the Venetian uses of the Byzantine style for the purposes of self-definition, especially in relation to Rome. On the other hand, Jacoff brings the faade of San Marco into the orbit of Italian commercial cities, while Pincus discusses the relationship of Andrea Dandolos tomb to funerary sculpture in mainland Italy. James asks whether the Byzantine style of the mosaics in San Marco necessarily correlated with Byzantine workmen and materials, and if the mosaics should be

4

HENRY MAGUIRE and ROBERT S. NELSON

seen exclusively in relation to Byzantium or reinterpreted with reference to mosaics produced in Italy. In sum, Venice emerges as an artistic center that embraced eclecticism of style and iconographic reference. As Pincus shows, medieval Venetian art never fit into the picture mapped out by the Florentine critic Vasari of an orderly progression from the supposed linearity of Byzantine art to the plasticity of the Early Renaissance. Rather, in a manner at times reminiscent of Late Roman art, it preserved and imitated the past while adding overlays from the present. The fourth, and most important, theme that runs through this book, and which has also inspired its title, is the construction of myths, both with art and about art. Here we are concerned not only with the central political myths that Venice, like most states, created about itself, but also with the host of other lesser stories concocted by the Venetians in the Middle Ages, by their contemporaries, and by later historians. Thus, we learn from Barrys paper that the mythical spolia from Byzantium on the south faade of the treasury have been shown not to have been spoliated at all but to have been manufactured in Venice. Maguire relates the myth of the icon of the Virgin Aniketos, which was said to have been carved from the very rock struck by Moses when he gave water to the Israelites in the desert. Jacoffs paper centers on the myth of the perfect concord and harmony of the doge, the patricians, and the tradesmen expressed on the west faade of San Marco. Dale discusses the mythical translation of Saint Marks body from the Middle East and the equally mythical rediscovery of the relics in 1094, events that buttressed Venices claims to political and commercial hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean. Klein introduces us to a host of relics, of mythical authenticity, wrested from Constantinople and other sites around the Mediterranean. The papers of Nelson and James introduce us to myths of a different kind, those of later commentators who have constructed stories about the monuments that the Venetians have left to us. Thus, James looks at the myth that artists imported from Byzantium were primarily responsible for the making of the mosaics in San Marco, while Nelson traces the genesis and flowering of the myth that identified the Pilastri Acritani as trophies of the Venetian defeat of the Genoese at Acre in the mid-thirteenth century. In reality, archaeological excavation has proved that the two piers came from the sixth-century church of Hagios Polyeuktos in Constantinople. But myth should not be dismissed as a subject of study just because it is at odds with fact. As modern politicians know, myths are often more powerful motivators than facts. This is the fascination of Venice, a city built, and still surviving, on the shifting tides and currents of its fables.

Introduction

5

6Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 12001400HOLGER A. KLEIN

when, in the early days of February 1438, Emperor John VIII Palaeologus and the delegation of advisers who accompanied him to the Council of Ferrara and Florence arrived in the Venetian lagoon, he was greeted with a splendid reception thatexcept for better weatherleft nothing to be desired.1 Accompanied by the bucintoro, the doges elaborate ceremonial barge, and escorted by twelve ships and numerous smaller boats and vessels, the emperors galley sailed into Venice, where it was greeted with great fanfare, chants, acclamations, and church bells resounding from all parts of the city. The doges ostentatious display of Venices might and splendor did not fail to have its desired impact on the illustrious guests. By the time the emperor and his entourage reached their quarters on the Grand Canal, the visitors were mesmerized by the citys beauty, which one of them later described as marvelous in the extreme, rich and varied and golden . . . and worthy of limitless praise.2 The Byzantine delegates admiration for the lagoon city, however, was not limited to the newly finished faade of the Palazzo Ducale, the golden domes of San Marco, or the patrician palaces on the Grand Canal.3 It also extended to those1 For a colorful description of the arrival of the Byzantine emperor and his delegation in Venice, see Les Mmoires du grand ecclsiarque de lglise de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos sur le Concile de Florence (14381439), ed. V. Laurent (Paris, 1971), 216.20218.5. For a further discussion of the event, see J. Dcarreaux, Larrive des Grecs en Italie pour le Concile de lUnion daprs les Mmoires de Syropoulos, Revue des tudes italiennes 7 (1960): 2758, esp. 3844. 2 Quae supersunt actorum graecorum Concilii Florentini, ed. J. Gill (Rome, 1953), 4.1216. See also J. Gill, The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959), 100; D. M. Nicol, Byzantium and Venice: A Study in Diplomatic and Cultural Relations (Cambridge, 1988), 377. 3 For the Gothic building phases of the Palazzo Ducale, see most recently A. Lermer, Der gotische Dogenpalast in Venedig: Baugeschichte und Skulpturenprogramm des Palatium Communis Venetiarum, Kunstwissenschaftliche Studien 121 (Berlin, 2005), esp. 4466, with further literature.

193

objects that had been brought from Constantinople to Venice in the decades following the Latin conquest of 1204 and were now the proud possessions of the most prestigious religious foundations on the Rialto, foremost among them the church of San Marco. The Memoirs of Sylvester Syropoulos, a deacon and patriarchal official of Hagia Sophia who formed part of Emperor John VIIIs retinue during that visit, gives us a vivid account of the attitudes and reactions that the sight of these treasures prompted among those Byzantine delegates who followed the Constantinopolitan patriarch Joseph II into the church of San Marco and were granted permission to see its sacred treasures ( ).4 The objects there were very precious and very rich indeed, studded with priceless stones of exceptional size and clarity. There were also numerous sacred figures made of different materials, all of extreme quality and refinement. Some were carved in stone with great skill, others were made with great taste from the purest gold. We also looked at the divine icons from what is called the holy templon, radiant in their golden shine and overwhelming the onlookers with the number of their precious stones, the size and beauty of their pearls, and the sophistication and diversity of the arts employed. These objects were brought here according to the law of booty ( ) right after the conquest of our city by the Latins, and were reunited in the form of a very large icon on top of the principal altar of the main choir. Its mighty doors opened only twice a year, on the Nativity of Christ and the holy feast of Easter. Among the people who contemplate this icon of icons, those who own it feel pride, pleasure, and delectation, while those from whom it was takenif they happen to be present, as in our casesee it as an object of sadness, sorrow, and dejection. We were told that these icons came from the templon of the most holy Great Church. However, we knew for sure, through the inscriptions and the images of the Komnenoi, that they came from the Pantocrator Monastery.5 Syropouloss account of the patriarchs visit to San Marco is an important document, because it relates the delegates convictionjustified or notthat some, if not all, the icons reunited in the Pala dOro (fig. 6.1) once belonged to the Monastery of Christ Pantocrator in Constantinople. It also offers a rare description of a Byzantine viewers reaction toward the dispersal of some of the most prized possessions of the Byzantine Empire and their recontextualization in a Western4 Sylvester Syropoulos, Mmoires, 222.2033. On Sylvester Syropoulos and his account, see J. Gill, The Acta and Memoirs of Syropoulos as History, OCP 14 (1948): 30555; J. L. van Dieten, Sylvester Syropoulos und die Vorgeschichte von FerraraFlorenz, AnnHistCon 9 (1977): 15479. For a short biographical sketch, see ODB 3:2001. 5 Syropoulos, Mmoires, 222.19224.4.

194

HOLGER A. KLEIN

Figure 6.1 Venice, San Marco; sanctuary with Pala dOro (source: Cameraphoto/Art Resource, NY)

195

or, more specifically, Venetian environment.6 Even though the provenance of a great number of Byzantine artifacts looted in 1204 and transferred to the Rialto during the Latin occupation can rarely be determined with any certainty, and the full extent of subsequent trade in such items is beyond the grasp of the historian, this article takes a closer look at the fate of some Byzantine spolia that reached the shores of Venice from the early thirteenth to the end of the fourteenth century, explores their political and religious function within the Venetian context, and highlights some aspects of their artistic and ritual adaptation.

the Pala doro and Andrea dandolos Projects for San MarcoMore than any other monument preserved in Venice, the Pala dOro epitomizes Venetian attitudes toward the reuse and display of Byzantine artifacts from the dogado of Enrico Dandolo (11921205) to that of his homonymous successor Andrea (134354).7 With the exception of San Marco itself, which was literally clad in Byzantine spolia after the sack of Constantinople in 1204, the icon of icons, as Syropoulos calls the golden pala, must be considered as one of the most ambitious attempts to bring together precious Byzantine artifacts of different periods and contexts, and present them within a single Venetian frame.8 As is commonly accepted by scholars and visibly documented by two fourteenthcentury inscriptions, prominently placed on the lower part of the Pala dOro,

6 While the association of some of the palas enamels with the Monastery of Christ Pantocrator may be less certain than Syropoulos and his fellow delegates suggeston this point, see O. Demus, Zur Pala dOro, JBG 16 (1967): 27273the Byzantine visitors claim of their ability to identify the icons true provenance based on their inscriptions and imagery may be taken less as a mistake on their part than an attempt at one-upmanship, at least on an intellectual level. On the provenance of the dodekaorton enamels, see also R. Polacco, La Pala dOro di San Marco dalla sua edizione bizantina a quella gotica, in Storia dellarte marciana: Sculture, tesoro, arazzi; Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Venezia, 1114 ottobre 1994 (Venice, 1997), 36879; H. R. Hahnloser and R. Polacco, eds., La Pala dOro (Venice, 1994), 99 and 12932; Syropoulos, Mmoires, 224, nn. 1 and 2; R. Gallo, Il Tesoro di S. Marco e la sua Storia (Venice, 1967), 16061. 7 For a summary account of the early literature on the Pala dOro, see Gallo, Tesoro, 15766. 8 For a summary assessment of the thirteenth-century faades of San Marco, see M. Jacoff, The Horses of San Marco and the Quadriga of the Lord (Princeton, 1993), 111, with further literature. See also O. Demus, Der skulpturale Fassadenschmuck des 13. Jahrhunderts, in Die Skulpturen von San Marco in Venedig: Die figrlichen Skulpturen der Auenfassaden bis zum 14. Jahrhundert, ed. W. Wolters (Munich, 1979), 115; O. Demus, The Church of San Marco in Venice: History, Architecture, Sculpture, DOS 6 (Washington DC, 1960), 10990. For the impact of the faades on the architecture of the city, see more recently M. Schuller, Le facciate dei Palazzi medioevali di Venezia: Ricerche su singoli esempi architettonici, in LArchitettura Gotica Veneziana, ed. F. Valcanover and W. Wolters (Venice, 2000), 290300. For preliminary results of the recent restoration of the north faade, see M. Schuller and K. Uetz, Progetti e procedere delladattamento architettonico della Basilica di San Marco nel Duecento: Primi resultati della Bauforschung alla facciata nord, in Quarta Crociata: VeneziBisanzioImpero Latino, ed. G. Ortalli, G. Ravegnani, and P. Schreiner (Venice, 2006), 82555. See also the various contributions in I. Favaretto, ed., Arte, storia, restauri della Basilica di San Marco a Venezia: La facciata nord, Quaderni della Procuratoria 1 (Venice, 2006).

196

HOLGER A. KLEIN

the work as we see it today can principally be understood as the product of two successive renovation campaigns, one executed in the early thirteenth and the other in the mid-fourteenth century.9 Both renovations aimed at an augmentation and reframing of the golden pala that is said to have been commissioned by Doge Ordelaffo Falier (110218) in Constantinople in 1105 to adorn the high altar of the church.10 Faliers pala was, in fact, not the first commission of its kind; a sumptuous pala of silver and gold (miro opere ex argento et auro) is mentioned in the eleventh-century chronicle of John the Deacon as having been ordered in Constantinople by Doge Pietro Orseolo (976978) in 976.11 The fate of Orseolos pala is unknown, but it is generally assumed that little or nothing of it has survived in the current arrangement.12 Considerably less unanimity exists concerning which of the palas surviving enamels once constituted the pala of Ordelaffo Falier and which were added during the renovation campaigns of 1209 and 1345.13 It was most likely during the renovation of 1209, overseen and perhaps even initiated by Angelo Falier, procurator of San Marco under Doge Pietro Ziani (120529), that the enameled figure of Ordelaffo Falier received a replacement head in order to depict him with a halo, a mode of representation previously reserved exclusively for Byzantine rulers.14 The addition of a haloed9 Depicted below, p. 252 fig. 8.3. The inscription on the left reads: anno milleno centeno ivngito qvi(n)to / tv(n)c ordelafvs faledrv(s) in vrbe ducabat / h(ec) nova f(a)c(t)a fvit gemis ditissima pala / q(ve) renovata fvit te petre dvcante ziani / et procvrabat tvnc angel(vs) acta faledr(vs) / anno milleno bis centenoq(ve) noveno. The inscription on the right: post qvadrageno qvinto post mille trecentos / da(n)dvl(vs) andreas pr(e)clar(vs) honore dvcabat / nob(i)lib(vs)q(ve) viris tvnc p(ro)cvra(n)tib(vs) alma(m) / eccl(esi)a(m) marci venera(n)da(m) ivre beati / d(e) lavredanis marco frescoq(ve) q(v)irino / tvnc vetus hec pala gemis p(re)ciosa novatur. Transcription after W. F. Volbach, Gli smalti della Pala dOro, in Hahnloser and Polacco, Pala dOro, 910, with references to earlier records. 10 Ordelaffos commission is attested in one of the fourteenth-century inscriptions cited above, a full-length enamel portrait plaque that identifies him as or(delaf) faletrvs d(e)i gr(aci)a venecie dvx on the lower pala, and in Andrea Dandolos Chronica per extensum descripta, ed. E. Pastorello, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores 12.1 (Bologna, 1938), 225, 284. The palas early thirteenth-century renovation under Pietro Ziani is mentioned both in the fourteenth-century inscription and in Andrea Dandolo, Chronica extensa, 225.1012: tabulam altaris Sancti Marci, additis gemis et perlis, Ducis iussu, reparavit. 11 John the Deacon, Chronicon Venetum, in Cronache Veneziane antichissime, ed. G. Monticolo, Fonti per la storia dItalia 9 (Rome, 1890), 57171. 12 See Demus, Pala dOro (above, n. 6), 264, and Demus, Church of San Marco, 2324: some of the larger medallions set into the new arrangement of the fourteenth century may be remnants of the Orseolo Pala. 13 For a recent attempt to assess the various phases of renovation of the Pala, see R. Polacco, Una nuova lettura della Pala dOro, in Hahnloser and Polacco, Pala dOro (above, n. 6), 11447. For earlier views, see M. E. Frazer, The Pala dOro and the Cult of St. Mark in Venice, JB 32, no. 5 (1982): 274: the lower Pala is a single integrated program commissioned from Byzantium by Ordelafo Falier in 1105. A somewhat more balanced view is offered by Demus, Pala dOro, 276, mainly in response to the arguments presented by H. R. Hahnloser, Magistra Latinitas und Peritia Greca, in Festschrift fr Herbert von Einem zum 16. Februar 1965 (Berlin, 1965), 7793. 14 On the changes made to this enamel, see most recently D. Buckton and J. Osborne, The Enamel of Doge Ordelafo Falier on the Pala dOro in Venice, Gesta 39 (2000): 4349, with

Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 12001400

197

head to the figure of the doge, as well as the assumed removal of the figure of Emperor Alexios I (and possibly other members of the imperial family), whose former presence on the pala is suggested by the surviving plaque of his wife, Empress Irene, may well reflect Venices new pride in its status as Lord of one quarter and a half of one quarter of the Roman Empire, an immediate result of the fall of Constantinople.15 While the full extent of the early thirteenthcentury renovation of Faliers pala and its use on the altar of Saint Markas an antependium, a retable, or a combination of bothremains elusive, it may be presumed that at least the upper palas six enamels with scenes from the Byzantine feast cycle (dodekaorton) and the magnificent plaque representing the archangel Michael were added to the earlier ensemble soon after their acquisition during the sack, namely, in 1209. It was probably also during that time, or shortly thereafter, that a precious marble ciborium was built in the sanctuary to frame the main altar and its newly enlarged pala.16 The subsequent renovation of the Pala dOro began with preliminary repair work during Andrea Dandolos tenure as procurator of San Marco in 1342 and turned into a complete overhaul of the existing structureincluding the commission of the so-called pala feriale, a painted cover for the golden pala, from the workshop of Paolo Venezianosoon after Dandolos election as doge on 3 January 1343.17 As recorded in the document authorizing new work on the pala, a goal of this renovation was to create a work worthy of a saint as great as San Marco and a city as magnificent as Venice.18 Despite numerous smaller repairs and restorations in the decades and centuries that followed, it is essentially thisreferences to the most important earlier literature. For a similar argument, see Demus, Pala dOro, 267. 15 Buckton and Osborne, Enamel, 47. For the division of the empire and its implications, see A. Carile, Partitio terrarum imperii Romanie, StVen 7 (1965): 125305; R. Cessi, Leredit di Enrico Dandolo, AVen 67 (1960): 125. 16 Dandolo, Chronica extensa, 225.11, records that Ordelaffo Falier had placed the newly commissioned pala above the altar (super altare) of Saint Mark, which seems to imply that the pala was already used as a retable during Dandolos lifetime. However, his statement does not help to clarify when it was placed on the altar. See also Demus, Pala dOro, 265, 272, 276. For the date of the installation of San Marcos ciborium and its enigmatic historiated columns, see A. Middeldorf Kosegarten, Zur liturgischen Ausstattung von San Marco in Venedig im 13. Jahrhundert: Kanzeln und Altarziborien, Marburger Jahrbuch fr Kunstwissenschaft 29 (2002): 777, esp. 4854; Polacco, Nuova lettura, 14147; T. Weigel, Die Reliefsulen des Hauptaltarciboriums von San Marco in Venedig (Mnster, 1997), 256. I would like to thank my colleague Franz Alto Bauer for an in-depth discussion of the various issues surrounding Ordelaffo Faliers pala and for his comments on an earlier draft of this article. 17 An inscription found in 1834 under one of the enamels on the upper pala reveals that work must have been begun in 1342 by a certain Master Giovanni Bone[n]segna. The pala feriale likewise bears a date (1345) and inscriptions attesting the work of Paolo Veneziano, his sons Luca and Giovanni, as well as one Master Perin, who was apparently responsible for the execution of the palas wooden support. Hahnloser and Polacco, Pala dOro (above, n. 6), 8588, 15159 (for the upper and lower pala); 16367 (for the pala feriale of Paolo Veneziano). 18 The document is preserved in the Archivio di Stato in Venice, Maggior Consiglio, reg. Spiritus, c. 129 t. See Gallo, Tesoro (above, n. 6), 177; Hahnloser and Polacco, Pala dOro, 87 with n. 18.

198

HOLGER A. KLEIN

work, executed between 1342 and 1345, that survives today on the main altar of San Marco.19 While work on the upper and lower pala was executed by independent masters, it followed a coherent overall plan, in which the various enamels were displayed in a central field framed by raised borders executed in gilded silver over a wooden core and richly decorated with repouss busts and scrollwork.20 The placement of enamels was systematized and each plaque surrounded by an elaborate metalwork frame composed of contemporary Gothic architectural and floral motifs. On the lower pala, each figure in the rows of angels, apostles, and prophets was placed under an elegant aedicule composed of enameled buttresses and openwork arches of various shapes and sizes. Spaces between each aedicule, as well as the arches and squinches, were studded with pearls and precious and semiprecious stones, set on mounts that resemble building blocks, blossoms, and flowers.21 A similar approach was taken on the upper pala, where the six large feast cycle enamels were organized in two groups of three, flanking the quatrefoil enamel with the archangel Michael and enclosed in micro-architectural settings. With its innumerable gems, pearls, and a plethora of luminous enamel plaques and medallions, Andrea Dandolos new pala was indeed, as Sylvester Syropoulos so aptly described, meant to radiate in its golden shine and overwhelm the onlooker with the sophistication and diversity of the arts employed.22 Andrea Dandolos initiative to reframe and reinstall the Pala dOro on the main altar of San Marco was not an isolated undertaking but part of a much broader program of artistic patronage that seems to have begun shortly after his appointment as procurator of San Marco in October 1328.23 By 1336, a silver-gilt antependium of about 1300 (fig. 6.2), previously used to decorate the main altar of San Marco on high feast days, was permanently installed on the altar, as a note inserted into the 1325 inventory of the treasures of San Marco reveals.24 While conclusive evidence is lacking, it was probably also under Dandolos watch as procurator that two serpentine columns with the crowning marble statues of the archangel Gabriel and the annunciate Virgin were installed behind San Marcos19 For the later repairs and restorations, see Hahnloser and Polacco, Pala dOro, 8384; Gallo, Tesoro, 17991. 20 Hahnloser and Polacco, Pala dOro, 10711. 21 Ibid., 1026 and 15159. This chapter was also published independently as E. TaburetDelahaye, Gli arrichimenti apportati alla Pala dOro nel 13421345 e le oreficerie di confronto, Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Venezia, 1114 ottobre 1994 (Venice, 1997), 35267. 22 Syropoulos, Mmoires, 222.2425. 23 For the date of Dandolos election, see Ester Pastorellos introduction to Dandolo, Chronica extensa, iv. 24 Gallo, Tesoro, 277, II. Haec sunt illa quae habemus in secunda camera sive volta Ecclesiae sancti Marci. In primis describimus ea quae pertinent ad Altare in magnis festivitatibus, videlicet: 1.Palam unam argenti, quae ponitur loco panni ante altare, cum figuris. 1336. Nunc autem est ante dictum altare et stat ibi continue. For the antependium or paliotto (inv. no. Tesoro 38), see Hahnloser, Tesoro, no. 152, 15256; The Treasury of San Marco, Venice, ed. D. Buckton, exhibition catalogue (New York, 1984), no. 40, 27881, with further references.

Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 12001400

199

Figure 6.2 Venice, San Marco; antependium (source: Cameraphoto Arte, Venice/Art Resource, NY)

main altar, where they served to support a system to raise and lower the upper portion of the Pala dOro on feast- and weekdays.25 Perhaps less well known than these projects for San Marco is Dandolos commission of three liturgical books for the celebration of Mass on high feast days. Transferred to the Marciana library in 1801, this set of service books consists of a Gospel lectionary (Venice, BNM, Lat. I, 100 [= 2089]), sacramentary (Venice, BNM, Lat. III, 111 [= 2116]), and epistolary (Venice, BNM, Lat. I, 101 [= 2260]).26 As Ranee Katzenstein has convincingly argued, the three manuscripts were designed together to serve the liturgical needs of the basilica of San Marco and executed in one of Venices most distinguished manuscript workshops during the 1330s or 1340s.27 All three books were richly illuminated in a style that combines Byzantine and Italian Gothicparticularly Bolognese and Paduanelements and iconographic motifs, a common feature of trecento Venetian art that can also be found in other illuminated manuscripts, mosaics, frescoes, and panel paintings of this period (fig. 6.3).28 Perhaps even more interesting than the mere fact that25 For the statues of the Annunciation group, see W. Wolters, La scultura veneziana gotica (13001460), 2 vols. (Venice, 1976), 1:160, no. 27. 26 For Andrea Dandolos manuscript commissions for the high altar of San Marco, see R. Katzenstein, Three Liturgical Manuscripts from San Marco: Art and Patronage in Mid-Trecento Venice (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1987). See also D. Pincus, Andrea Dandolo (13431354) and Visible History: The San Marco Projects, in Art and Politics in Late Medieval and Early Renaissance Italy, 12501500, ed. C. Rosenberg (South Bend, 1990), 191206, here 198, and S. Marcon, ed., I Libri di San Marco: I manoscritti liturgici della basilica marciana (Venice, 1995), no. 33, 12829; no. 35, 13031; no. 37, 13334. 27 For the circumstances of the manuscripts transfer to the Marciana library, see Katzenstein, Three Liturgical Manuscripts, 6163. For the presumed date of the manuscripts, see ibid., 6878. 28 On the hybrid character of Venetian trecento art in general, see most recently Hans Belting and Francesca Flores dArcaiss contributions to Il Trecento adriatico: Paolo Veneziano e la pittura tra Oriente e Occidente, ed. F. Flores dArcais and G. Gentili, exhibition catalogue (Milan, 2002), 1831, 7079, and H. Belting, Dandolos Dreams: Venetian State Art and Byzantium,

200

HOLGER A. KLEIN

Figure 6.3 Sanctuary with Pala dOro; detail of image from A. Visentini, Interno della Regia Cappella Nella Basilica di San Marco (courtesy of the Musei Civici di Venezia, Museo Correr, St. Molin no. 372)

Dandolo commissioned these worksa direct response to changes in the cult of Saint Mark and the liturgy celebrated at his churchis his decision to enclose them in preexisting luxury bindings, which predetermined their formats and sizes.29 Like the manuscripts they once contained, they are now preserved in the

in Byzantium, Faith, and Power (12611557): Perspectives on Late Byzantine Art and Culture, ed. S. Brooks, exhibition catalogue (New York, 2006), 14047. See also Katzenstein, Three Liturgical Manuscripts, 143. The three Marciana manuscripts have been linked to a Venetian workshop active from about 1320 to 1360 with links to both the Procuratoria of San Marco and the ducal chancery. Katzenstein identifies three artists at work on the sacramentary, one on the lectionary, and another one on the epistolary, whose styles betray Bolognese and Paduan training. See ibid., 4483 and 22732. 29 On the covers, see most recently T. Papamastorakis, : , .... 27 (2006): 391410; Marcon, Libri, no. 34, 12930; no. 36, 13233; no. 38, 13435. See also A. Grabar, Legature Byzantine del Medioevo, in Il Tesoro di San Marco, ed. H. R. Hahnloser, vol. 2, Il Tesoro e il Museo (Florence, 1971), 4446, and nos. 3537, 4750; K. Wessel, Byzantine Enamels from the Fifth to the Thirteenth Century (New York, 1967), no. 13, 5862 (epistolary cover); no. 27, 8589 (Gospel lectionary cover); no. 58, 182 (sacramentary cover); Treasury of San Marco, no. 9, 12428 (epistolary cover); no. 14, 15255 (lectionary cover).

Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 12001400

201

Figure 6.4 Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana; epistolary cover (front), Lat. I, 101 (= 2260) (source: Mario Carrieri OlivettiProcuratoria di San Marco)

Biblioteca Marciana.30 Based on stylistic comparisons with other works of Byzantine enamel in the treasury of San Marco and elsewhere, scholars have generally maintained that the book covers for the epistolary (fig. 6.4) and Gospel lectionary (fig. 6.5) were made in Constantinople in the ninth and tenth century, respectively, while the one for the sacramentary (fig. 6.6) may have been made in Venice during the thirteenth century in imitation of a Byzantine luxury binding, such as the one containing the San Marco lectionary.31 For the epistolary cover, a Byzantine origin and late ninth-century date seem highly likely, as its30 A catalogue entry in Biblia, patres, liturgia, ed. T. Gasparini Leporace, exhibition catalogue (Venice, 1961), 35, reveals that the manuscripts were separated from their covers shortly before 1961. See Katzenstein, Three Liturgical Manuscripts, 47, n. 4. 31 Basing his opinion on the poor overall quality of the covers execution and certain anomalies in the inscriptions of the saintly figures, Grabar, Legature, no. 37, 49, was the first to argue for an Italian origin and thirteenth-century date for the sacramentary cover. Grabars ideas have since been accepted by Papamastorakis, , 410, and Marcon, Libri (above, n. 26), 132.

202

HOLGER A. KLEIN

Figure 6.5 Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana; Gospel lectionary cover (back), Lat. I, 100 (= 2089) (source: Mario Carrieri OlivettiProcuratoria di San Marco)

Figure 6.6 Venice, Bibliotheca Nazionale Marciana; sacramentary cover (back), Lat. III, 111 (= 2116) (courtesy of Hirmer Fotoarchiv, Munich)

203

enamels compare closely in both style and technique to the ones decorating the votive crown of Emperor Leo the Wise (886912) in the treasury of San Marco (fig. 6.7).32 As far as the lectionarys precious binding is concerned, Andr Grabar and others have likewise maintained a Constantinopolitan origin and assigned dates ranging from the mid-tenth through the early eleventh century based on the enamels style and color scheme, which resemble the enamels on the Limburg staurotheke (fig. 6.8) and a number of chalices in the treasury.33 Like many other objects preserved there, the enamel decoration on the epistolary and lectionary covers is no longer complete. In both instances the surviving enamels have been rearranged and thus no longer represent their original Byzantine program.34 Losses and restorations have also affected the strings of pearls that frame the covers decorative borders and medallions. A late medieval restoration campaign is more clearly identifiable on the sacramentary cover, which features four enamels of mid-fourteenth-century date depicting the four Evangelists in the corners of the covers back.35 Dandolos project to restore and reframe San Marcos golden pala altaris and his commission to provide a new set of service books for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy betray his keen interest in the reuse of Byzantine artifacts.36 In the case of the Pala dOro, a large number of Byzantine enamels from various sources was added to the existing programs of the twelfth-century pala and its presumed thirteenth-century extension, and all were subjected to a new Venetian frame. In the case of the manuscripts, on the other hand, the three newly commissioned Venetian works were enclosed in older Byzantine or pseudoByzantine frames or covers. Dandolos two most prestigious projects for the altar of San Marco thus seem to complement each other meaningfully: the pala spells out in no uncertain terms the citys claim to one quarter and a half of one quarter of the Roman Empire, while the manuscripts utilize and exploit the32 Grabar, Legature, no. 35, 4748; Treasury of San Marco (above, n. 24), no. 8, 12022; Wessel, Enamels, no. 12, 5758. 33 Grabar, Legature, no. 36, 4849; Treasury of San Marco, no. 14, 15255; The Glory of Byzantium: Art and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 8431261, ed. W. D. Wixom and H. C. Evans, exhibition catalogue (New York, 1997), no. 41, 88. Whether certain technical and epigraphic aspects of the Lectionary cover, such as the unusual cabochon settings or the inscription identifying Saint John the Baptist as (C) C(C) rather than the more common C C have any implications for the place or the circumstances of its manufacture, remains to be investigated more fully. The unusual inscription for Saint John the Baptist was first noted by Wessel, Enamels, 86. 34 Attempts to reconstruct the presumed original order have been made by Grabar, Legature, 49, and Wessel, Enamels, 86. 35 For the Venetian enamels, see G. Mariani Canova, Presenza dello smalto traslucido nel Veneto durante la prima met del Trecento, Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, ser. 3, 14 (1984): 73355. See also Grabar, Legature, no. 37, 50. 36 Even if the sacramentary cover was manufactured in Venice during the thirteenth century, the style and iconography of its enamel decoration make it an inherently Byzantine object that must have appealed to Dandolo for this very quality.

204

HOLGER A. KLEIN

Figure 6.7 Venice, San Marco, treasury; votive crown of Emperor Leo the Wise (source: Mario Carrieri Olivetti Procuratoria di San Marco)

Figure 6.8 Limburg an der Lahn, cathedral treasury; Limburg staurotheke (closed) (courtesy of Dom- und Dizesanmuseum, Limburg)

205

visible authority and age of the Byzantine bindings to elevate the status of the sacred texts. One could argue that Dandolo intended to incorporate not only the Byzantine past into a Venetian present, as suggested by Titos Papamastorakis, but also the Venetian present into a Byzantine pasta past that could function as a visual confirmation of the time-honored tradition and apostolic roots of the cult of Saint Mark in Venice.37 Dandolos other projects for the church may be considered to have followed a similar agenda. His most notable commission beyond those for the main altar was his campaign to redecorate the baptistery of San Marco with an extensive cycle of mosaics (pl. XII).38 As in the case of the Pala dOro, his involvement in the embellishment probably started during his term as procurator of San Marco, specifically in 1329, when the tomb of Doge Giovanni Soranzo (131228) was placed in the baptistery, the first ducal burial inside the church since that of Marino Morosini (124953).39 As Debra Pincus has convincingly argued, Dandolo must have played a crucial role in choosing the location for Soranzos tomb on the north wall of the baptisterys vestibule, as he was appointed procurator de supra of San Marco only two months before Soranzos death in December 1328.40 The assumption, however, that the tomb monument was placed in this location to create a sightline for those entering the baptistery through the door from the Piazzetta and give the visitor a pointed, meaningful message at the moment of entry into the sacred space41 should be viewed with caution in light of Jacopo de Barbaris birds-eye view of Venice (pl. I), which seems to suggest37 See Papamastorakis, (above, n. 29), 4014, 410. 38 Raphayni de Caresinis cancellarii venetiarum chronica AA. 13431388, ed. E. Pastorello, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores 12, no. 2 (Bologna, 1923), 8.2324. On the baptistery and its fourteenth-century decoration, see the in-depth study by Debra Pincus in this volume. See also Belting, Dandolos Dreams (above, n. 28), 13853; D. Pincus, Geografia e politica nel Battistero di San Marco: La cupola degli apostoli, in San Marco: Aspetti storici e agiografici, ed. A. Niero (Venice, 1996), 45973; G. Horn, Das Baptisterium der Markuskirche in Venedig: Baugeschichte und Ausstattung (Frankfurt am Main, 1991). 39 See D. Pincus, Hard Times and Ducal Radiance: Andrea Dandolo and the Construction of the Ruler in Fourteenth-Century Venice, in Venice Reconsidered: The History and Civilization of an Italian City-State, 12971797, ed. J. Martin and D. Romano (Baltimore, 2000), 89136, esp. 98104; eadem, The Tombs of the Doges of Venice (New York, 1999), 88104; W. Wolters, La scultura veneziana gotica (13001460), 2 vols. (Venice, 1976), 1:156, no. 17. 40 Pincus, Tombs of the Doges, 88104, esp. 9092, with nn. 12 and 13. Since Soranzos will, drawn up on 8 August 1321, does not make any provisions for a tomb or other burial arrangements, Pincus argues that the procurators active involvement in the choice of the tombs location was highly likely. Of course, this does not exclude the possibility that the placement of Soranzos tomb in the baptisterylike that of Andrea Dandolo a quarter of a century laterwas prompted by his having performed some special service for the Baptistery, as suggested by Demus, and that this special merit to which he owed his sepulchre in the Baptistery consisted in the architectural adaptation of the baptismal chapel. Demus, Church of San Marco (above, n. 8), 79. For the office of the procurator de supra and its responsibilities, see R. Mueller, The Procurators of San Marco in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries: A Study of the Office as a Financial and Trust Institution, StVen 23 (1971): 105220, esp. 10814. 41 Pincus, Tombs of the Doges, 92.

206

HOLGER A. KLEIN

that this entrance did not exist before the print was created, in about 1500.42 Whether Dandolos project for the mosaic decoration of the baptistery likewise began during his tenure as procurator is difficult to determine.43 His ducal portrait in the large Crucifixion mosaic on the altar wall (pl. VIII; fig. 8.18) leaves no doubt, however, that the chapels decoration was completed only after his election as doge in 1342.44 No less ambitious than Dandolos baptistery project was his campaign to build the Cappella di SantIsidoro, a small space on the northern flank of the north transept, and to decorate it with an extensive cycle of mosaics.45 While the chapels decoration was completed only in 1355, after Dandolos death, the doges initiative was sparked by his rediscovery of the relics of Saint Isidore, whichtogether with other important relicshad been brought to Venice by Doge Domenico Michiel from the island of Chios in 1125.46 As in the image program of the Pala dOro, which prominently features Ordelaffo Falier as the doge who commissioned the original pala in Constantinople, the doge responsible for42 I would like to thank Ettore Vio, who pointed out this detail in conversations during a recent visit to San Marco in the summer of 2007. If one accepts the evidence of de Barbaris woodcut, the new baptistery entrance may have been created when the southwest entrance into San Marco and with it the entrance into the baptisterywas closed off from the Piazzetta to accommodate the tomb monument of Cardinal Battista Zeno between 1503/4 and 1515. Ettore Vio has meanwhile published his observations: Nuovi approfondimenti sulle faciate ovest e sud dal modello ligneo della basilica di San Marco, in Florilegium Artium: Scritti in memoria di Renato Polacco, ed. G. Trovabene, et al., Miscellanea collana della Facolt di Lettere e Filosofia dellUniversit di Venezia 8 (Padua, 2006), 195202. On the Cappella Zen, see B. Jestaz, La chapelle Zen SaintMarc de Venise: DAntonio Tullio Lombardo, Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christlichen Archologie 15 (Stuttgart, 1986). 43 Demus, Church of San Marco, 79, following F. Zanotto, Novissima guida di Venezia (Venice, 1856), 82, who suggested that the project may have started before Dandolo became doge. 44 For an assessment of the mosaics style and date, see R. Pallucchini, La Pittura veneziana del Trecento (Venice, 1964), 7578; Horn, Baptisterium (above, n. 38), 181; Pincus, Tombs of the Doges, 134 with n. 26; Belting, Dandolos Dreams (above, n. 28), 142. 45 On the Cappella di SantIsidoro, see most recently the various studies included in the Quaderni della Procuratoria, vol. 3: Arte, Storia, Restauri della Basilica di San Marco a Venezia: La Cappella di SantIsidoro (Venezia, 2008). See also R. Dellermann, Iussu ducis, auf Befehl des Dogen: Die Cappella di S. Isidoro in S. Marco; Kunst und Heiligenreprsentation unter dem Dogen Andrea Dandolo (134354) im Kontext (PhD diss., Technische Universitt Berlin, 2006); E. De Franceschi, I mosaici della cappella di SantIsidoro nella basilica di San Marco a Venezia, in ArtV 60 (2003): 629; P. Saccardo, La cappella di S. Isidoro nella basilica di San Marco (Venice, 1887; repr. 1987). For the relics of Saint Isidore, see Gallo, Tesoro (above, n. 6), 12123. 46 For Dandolos rediscovery of the relics in San Marco, see Raphaynus de Caresinis, Chronica, 8.67. See also F. Cornaro, Ecclesiae Venetae antiquis monumentis . . . illustratae ac in decades distributae, 16 vols. (Venice, 1749), 10.2:1078 and F. Ughelli, Italia Sacra, 10 vols. (Venice, 171722), 5:1239. For the story of the translation of the saints relics, see Cerbano Cerbani, Translatio mirifici Martyris Isidori a Chio insula in civitatem Venetam (Jun. 1125), Recueil des historiens des Croisades, Hist. occ., 16 vols. (Paris, 184495), 5:32134. For the local tradition of the saints passio, see P. Cal, Legendae de Sanctis (= Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana Lat. IX 18 [= 2945]), fols. 222v224; P. De Natalibus, Catalogus Sanctorum et gestorum eorum ex diversis et multis voluminibus collectus (Venice, 1516), lib. V, cap. 2. For the historical circumstances that led to the saints translation, see H. Kretschmayr, Geschichte von Venedig, 3 vols. (Gotha, 190520; Stuttgart, 1934), 1:229; Nicol, Byzantium and Venice (above, n. 2), 79.

Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 12001400

207

Figure 6.9 Venice, San Marco, Cappella di SantIsidoro; view toward the east (source: Scala/Art Resource, NY)

208

the translation of the relics of Saint Isidore holds a prominent position in the image program of the chapel. As in the inscriptions of the Pala dOro, which give prominence to those who restored and further embellished Faliers pala, those who founded and lavishly decorated the chapel of Saint Isidore are proudly named in a dedicatory inscription of its eastern wall (fig. 6.9).47 As Debra Pincus has shown, these and other commissions ultimately aimed at a (re)presentation of Venices glorious past in a cumulative display of its political and sacred history.48 The two inscription panels included in the lowest register of Dandolos refashioned Pala dOro spell out literally what Faliers commission of 1105 and the Byzantine spolia added in 1209 and 1342 spell out visually, namely, that the greatness of the Venetian polity wasand continues to bethe result not only of divine providence but also of the commitment and successive contributions of its political and civic leadership to exalt the church and the state of San Marco.49

enrico dandolo and the Spoils of ByzantiumThe practice of refashioning Byzantine artifacts and placing them within a new material or institutional context or frame was, of course, not an invention of the fourteenth century, but had a long and venerable history on the Rialto. It was in the decades following the sack of Constantinople, however, that the influx into Venice of Byzantine objects and architectural spolianot only from Constantinople, but from the entire eastern Mediterranean50greatly intensified and resulted in their successive appropriation for new uses in both the public and private sphere. In its most basic form this process of appropriation involved the integration of Byzantine architectural sculpture and statuary into the framework of existing47 The inscription states: corp(vs) b(ea)ti ysidori p(rese)nti ar(c)ha claudit(vr) venec(ias) delat(vm) a chio p(er) d(omi)nvm d(omi)nicv(m) michael inclitv(m) venec(iarvm) dvce(m) i(n) mcxxv q(vo)d oc(c)vlte i(n) ecc(lesi)a s(ancti) marci p(er)ma(n)sit vsq(ve) ad i(n)cepcionem edificacio(n)is hvi(vs) capele suo no(m)i(n)e edhificat(e) i(n)cept(e) dvca(n)te d(omi)no andrea da(n)dvlo i(n)clito venec(iarvm) dvce et t(em)p(o)r(e) nobiliv(m) viror(vm) d(omi)nor(vm) marci lavredano et ioh(an)ni(s) dolphin(o) p(ro)cvr(ator) (e)cc(lesi)e s(ancti) marci et (com)plecte dvca(n)t(e) d(omi)no ioha(n)e g(ra)do(n)icho i(n)clit(o) ven(e)c(iarum) dvce et t(em)p(o)r(e) nobiliv(m) viro(rvm) d(omi)nor(vm) marci lavredano et nicolai lio(n) et ioh(an)i(s) dolphin(o) p(ro)cvr(atorvm) ecc(lesi)e s(ancti) marci i(n) mccclx ivlii die x. The inscription is recorded by Marino Sanudo, Le Vite dei Dogi, ed. G. Monticolo, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores 22, 4 (Citt di Castello, 1900), 626; Ughelli, Italia Sacra, 5:1239. 48 D. Pincus, Andrea Dandolo (above, n. 26), 191206; Hahnloser and Polacco, Pala dOro (above, n. 6), 8688. 49 On the reciprocal relationship between text and image, see ibid., esp. 19498. 50 As emphasized by Demus, Church of San Marco (above, n. 8), 2627, it is important to remember that Constantinople was not the only source for Byzantine architectural spolia and other building materials during the thirteenth century.

Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 12001400

209

Venetian buildings.51 The insertion of the porphyry Tetrarchs into the corner of the treasury of San Marco after 1231 and the placement of the famous Carmagnola and the horses of San Marco on the balcony of its west faade are only the most prominent examples of such a practice.52 Inserted into the fabric of Venetian churches and palaces, these spolia soon developed a life of their own, inspiring colorful legends of popes, sultans, and emperors, as well as moralizing tales of greed, conspiracy, and murder.53 Other Byzantine objects were incorporated not into the material fabric of Venetian buildings but into the ritual and ceremonial practices of Venetian churches and monasteries. At San Marco, for instance, precious Byzantine chalices, patens, and other liturgical vessels were appropriated to serve the same liturgical functions for which they were originally created. Indeed, many such objects have survived virtually unchanged in the treasury.54 In the case of Byzantine liturgical books, the transition from one cultural and liturgical environment into the other posed greater challenges, because Greek texts were of limited use in an environment that celebrated the Divine Liturgy in Latin. Byzantine book covers, on the other hand, could be reemployed to endow newly made Latin service books with an aura of venerable age and apostolic legitimacy, as the manuscript commissions of Andrea Dandolo have already shown. In some cases, the process of appropriating precious Byzantine artifacts involved more extensive modifications and interventions than did others. At San51 On the concept of appropriation in general and the horses of San Marco in particular, see R. Nelson, Appropriation, in Critical Terms for Art History, ed. R. Nelson and R. Shiff, 2nd ed. (Chicago, 2003), 16073. 52 Others included a plethora of columns, capitals, and figural reliefs. For architectural spolia used in the faades of San Marco, see these and related works, Corpus der Kapitelle der Kirche von San Marco zu Venedig, ed. F. W. Deichmann, with J. Kramer and U. Peschlow, Forschungen zur Kunstgeschichte und christlichen Archologie 12 (Wiesbaden, 1981). For the Tetrarchs and the Carmagnola, see the chapters by Fabio Barry and Robert Nelson above. See also R. Nelson, High Justice: Venice, San Marco, and the Spoils of 1204, in Byzantine Art in the Aftermath of the Fourth Crusade, ed. P. Vokotopoulos (Athens, 2007), 14351. On the Tetrarchs and their identification as spoils from Constantinople, see R. Naumann, Der antike Rundbau beim Myrelaion und der Palast Romanos I. Lekapenos, IstMitt 16 (1966): 20911; P. Verzone, I due gruppi in porfido di San Marco in Venezia ed il Philadelphion di Costantinopoli, Palladio 8 (1958): 814. On the Tetrarchs and related porphyry works, see also H. P. Laubscher, Beobachtungen zu Tetrarchischen Kaiserbildnissen aus Porphyr, JDAI 114 (1999): 20752. On the Carmagnola, and its alleged provenance from the Philadelphion in Constantinople, see C. Mango, Le dveloppement urbain de Constantinople, IVeVIIe sicles (Paris, 1985), 29; J. D. Breckenridge, Again the Carmagnola, Gesta 20 (1981): 17. On the horses of San Marco and the significance they acquired in Venice, see Jacoff, Horses of San Marco (above, n. 8), 1220. 53 For the legendary accounts inspired by the horses of San Marco, the Tetrarchs, and other sculptures in San Marco, see M. Perry, Saint Marks Trophies: Legend, Superstition, and Archaeology in Renaissance Venice, JWarb 40 (1977): 2749. 54 The inventory of 1325 lists septem chalices de unicolo magnos in modum Grecorum, ornatos argento deaurato, of which several survive with only minor restorations of later date. See Gallo, Tesoro (above, n. 6), 287, no. III.19. For a selection of Byzantine liturgical vessels adapted for use in San Marco, see Treasury of San Marco (above, n. 24), nos. 1011, 12940; nos. 1518, 15670.

210

HOLGER A. KLEIN

Marco, the installation of new liturgical furnishings resulted in a major reorganization of the sanctuary area between 1209 and 1268; during this time, three marble ciboria were installed, one above the churchs principal altar and two more above secondary altars on either side. Additionally, two large pulpits were installed on the north- and southeastern crossing piers.55 While the date of the historiated columns supporting the ciborium of the main altar and the origin of the various spolia making up the pulpits of San Marco are likely to remain contentious issues, there can be no doubt that the sixth-century Byzantine spolia incorporated into the pulpits physical structure was consciously manipulated to serve the needs of the state and the church of San Marco during the thirteenth century.56 The use of the south pulpit, which incorporates four Byzantine porphyry slabs and displays them in a pseudo-authentic manner, is a case in point. It not only reveals that the Venetians were keenly aware of the symbolic associations of porphyry but also attests to their willingness to exploit these associations for their own liturgical and ceremonial needs. Recording the events that followed the election of Doge Lorenzo Tiepolo (126875) in 1268, Martino da Canal is the first Venetian chronicler to relate that the doge and his forty-one electors presented themselves to the people on the porphyry pulpit.57 He also recorded that the doge followed Mass from this pulpit on high feast days, thus confirming its role as an important stage for ducal appearances.58 The south pulpits function as a platform for the presentation of one of San Marcos most sacred relics, namely, the relic of the Holy Blood, may be seen as an extension of such uses to Christ, the divine ruler himself, whose physical presence was invoked through the public display of his most important bodily relic.5955 The difficulty in establishing a firm chronology for the series of interventions in the altar area is due to a lack of contemporary sources and the uncertainty that still surrounds the dates and provenances of key objects in the discussion, namely, the historiated columns supporting the ciborium above San Marcos main altar and the north and south pulpit. For the installation of the ciborium above San Marcos main altar, Weigel, Reliefsulen (above, n. 16), 256, suggested a date of about 1230. For the installation of the pulpits Middeldorf Kosegarten, Liturgische Ausstattung (above, n. 16), 1820, advocated a date between 1260 and 1268. 56 For a recent in-depth study of the pulpits and ciboria of San Marco, see Middeldorf Kosegarten, Liturgische Ausstattung, 777. See also G. Lorenzoni, Le vie del porfido a Venezia: Gli amboni di San Marco, in Le Vie del medioevo: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi, Parma, 28 settembre1 ottobre 1998, ed. A. C. Quintavalle (Milan, 2000), 12530; S. Minguzzi, Aspetti della decorazione marmorea e architettonica della Basilica di San Marco, in Marmi della Basilica di San Marco: Capitelli, plutei, rivestimenti, arredi, ed. I. Favaretto et al. (Milan, 2000), 29121; S. Minguzzi, Elementi di scultura tardoantica a Venezia: Gli amboni di San Marco, Felix Ravenna 14142 (199192): 793. 57 Tiepolos predecessor Raniero Zeno (r. 125368) was proclaimed doge in front of the main altar in 1253, which may be taken as an indication that the installation of the pulpit and changes in the ducal proclamation ritual went hand in hand. See Middeldorf Kosegarten, Liturgische Ausstattung, 19. 58 Martino da Canal, Les Estoires de Venise: Cronaca veneziana in lingua francese dalle origini al 1275, ed. A. Limentani, Civilt veneziana: Fonti e Testi 12, 3rd ser., 3 (Florence, 1972), 280, 36263. 59 San Marcos relic of the Holy Blood was displayed on the south pulpit on Maundy Thursday and during the Vigil for Easter Sunday. While the south pulpits use as a pulpitum reliquiarum

Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 12001400

211

According to Andrea Dandolos Chronica extensa, the relic of the Holy Blood of Christ was one of four allegedly sent to San Marco by Enrico Dandolo soon after the sack of Constantinople: The doge obtained the gold-mounted, miracle-working cross that Constantine, after its invention by his mother, took with him into battle, and an ampoule with the miraculous blood of Jesus Christ, and the arm of the martyr Saint George, and a fragment of the skull of Saint John the Baptist, which the doge ordered to be removed to Venice to be housed in his chapel.60 The earliest surviving record of the existence and physical appearance of these relics is a marble relief commonly dated to the later thirteenth or early fourteenth century (pl. X).61 It is set into the wall of a narrow passageway that connected the ducal palace with the church of San Marco through the south wall of its south transept and served as a ceremonial route in medieval and postmedieval times.62 Placed within a double frame composed of an outer band of four long plaques of salmon-colored pietra di Verona and an inner band of shorter plaques of alternating red, white, and pink variegated marble, lined on both sides by thinis first recorded in the sixteenth-century Rituum Ecclesiasticarum ceremoniale of Bartolomeo Bonifacio (BNM, Lat. III 172 [= 2276], fol. 8), the practice itself is likely to be significantly older. For a synopsis of sources relating to the pulpits functions, see Middeldorf Kosegarten, Liturgische Ausstattung, 1823. See also S. Sinding-Larsen, The Burden of the Ceremony Master: Image and Action in San Marco, Venice, and in an Islamic Mosque: The Rituum Ceremoniale of 1564, Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia 12 (Rome, 1999), 291. 60 Dandolo, Chronica extensa, 280.711: ex optinuit dux mirificam crucem auro inclusam, quam, post inventionem matris, Constantinus in bellis secum detulerat, et ampulam sanguinis miraculosi Iesu Christi, et brachium sancti Georgii martiris cum parte capitis sancti Iohanis Baptiste, quas dux mictens Veneciam, in sua capela colocari iussit. 61 On the marble panel and its date of execution, see the foundational study by D. Pincus, Christian Relics and the Body Politic: A Thirteenth-Century Relief Plaque in the Church of San Marco, in Interpretazioni Veneziane: Studi di Storia dellArte in onore di Michelangelo Muraro, ed. D. Rosand (Venice, 1984), 3957, who attributes the relief to the period of the 1250s and 1260s. K. Krause, Immaginereliquia: da Bisanzio allOccidente, in Mandylion: Intorno al Sacro Volto, da Bisanzio a Genova, ed. G. Wolf (Genoa, 2004), 20935, esp. 216 with n. 65, instead suggested a date in the later thirteenth or early fourteenth century. In a previous article on a related subject, I followed Karin Krauses dating of the relief and would still contend that a date in the early fourteenth century cannot be excluded. See H. Klein, Die Heiltmer Venedigs: Die byzantinischen Reliquien der Stadt, in Quarta Crociata: VeneziaBisanzioImpero latino, ed. G. Ortalli, G. Ravegnani, P. Schreiner, 2 vols. (Venice, 2006), 2:699736, esp. 799. See also the discussion by Thomas Dale, p. 178. The recent article by R. Polacco, Proposte per una chiarificazione sul significato e sulla funzione del bassorilievo delle reliquie dellandito Foscari in San Marco a Venezia, in Hadriatica: Attorno a Venezia e al medioevo tra arti, storia e storiografia; Scritti in onore di Wladimiro Dorigo, ed. E. Concina et al., Miscellanea collana della Facolt di Lettere e Filosofia dellUniversit di Venezia 1 (Padua, 2002), 13337, escaped my scrutiny earlier and must be included here. I would like to thank Debra Pincus for kindly drawing my attention to this study. 62 On the use of the passageway, see S. Sinding-Larsen, Christ in the Council Hall: Studies in the Religious Iconography of the Venetian Republic, Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium Historiam Pertinentia 5 (Rome, 1974), 21112. The reasons for the placement of the relief on the western wall of this passageway, which also forms the exterior of the eastern wall of the treasury of San Marco, have not yet been explained fully.

212

HOLGER A. KLEIN

Figure 6.10 Venice, San Marco, treasury; reliquary of the True Cross of Henry of Flanders (Santuario 55) (source: Mario Carrieri Olivetti Procuratoria di San Marco)

strips of bricked molding, the relief seems to depict the five most venerable relics of the church. At the center of the composition, two kneeling angels, their wings spread widely, are holding between them a cylindrical reliquary ostensorium. In its formal appearance, this object closely resembles the reliquary of the precious blood of Christ, still preserved in the treasury of San Marco (Santuario 63; above, pl. XI), and has therefore often been identified with it.63 Framing the central group of relic-bearing angels on either side are two reliquary crosses, a Latin cross mounted on a simple knobbed foot, on the right, and a more elaborate Byzantine-style cross with three crossarms and the flanking figures of the mourning Virgin and Saint John, on the left. Given their formal characteristics63 For the first identification of the reliquary as Santuario 63, see A. Pasini, Il Tesoro di San Marco in Venezia (Venice, 1887), 3. This identification was later confirmed by Hahnloser, Tesoro (above, n. 29), 140; Pincus, Christian Relics, 42 with n. 21; and Krause, Immagine-reliquia, 216, who generally follows the identifications given by Pincus. See also Klein, Heiltmer von Venedig, 2:802.

Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 12001400

213

Figure 6.11 Venice, San Marco, treasury; staurotheke of Empress Irene Ducas (Santuario 75) (source: Osvaldo Boehm)

Figure 6.12 Venice, San Marco, treasury; reliquary of the arm of Saint George (Santuario 53) (source: Mario Carrieri Olivetti Procuratoria di San Marco)

214

and apparent similarities with preserved reliquary crosses in the treasury of San Marco, these two objects have been most commonly identified as the cross of Henry of Flanders (Santuario 55; fig. 6.10) and the reliquary cross of Empress Irene Ducas (Santuario 75; fig. 6.11).64 Completing the display in the spaces directly above the kneeling angels are two additional reliquaries of a more unusual format, as well as the blessing hand of God and an angel emerging from segments of heaven in the relief s upper corners. The object depicted on the right can perhaps best be described as tubular in shape, resembling a quiver. It is decorated with floral motifs set in a diamond pattern and features on its lateral sides two chains, a longer one that may have allowed the object to be carried in processions, and a shorter one, which may have been used to secure a lid. The object on the left resembles a rectangular box, its lid tilted toward the back, thus revealing a round object decorated with a cruciform appliqu at its center. While none of the reliquaries preserved in the treasury of San Marco closely matches these objects any longer in shape or format, the objects depicted on the relief have been convincingly associated with the relic arm of Saint George, now enshrined in an early fourteenth-century reliquary (Santuario 53; fig. 6.12), and the cranium of Saint John the Baptist.65 The presumed identity of at least three of the relics depicted in the treasury relief finds confirmation in a ducal letter sent by Raniero Zeno (125368) to the Venetian ambassadors in Rome on 30 May 1265.66 Through his letter, the doge instructed his ambassadors to notify the pope of a miracle that had taken place in the church of San Marco during a catastrophic fire that devastated the basilicas treasury on 13 January 1231 and destroyed most of the sacred objects housed within it. Miraculously, three sacred relicsnamely, a relic of the True Cross, a crystal ampoule with the blood of Christ, and a piece of the skull of Saint John the Baptisthad escaped the destruction virtually intact and were discovered among the charred remains in the treasury following the great fire. The doge further advised his ambassadors to support a delegation of Dominican and64 While most scholars have associated the Byzantine-style cross on the panels left with the reliquary cross of Henry of Flanders, it must be noted that the third crossbar depicted on the relief and the missing figurines of Ecclesia and Synagogue remain puzzling features that resist an easy explanation. Hahnloser, Tesoro (above, n. 29), 140, cautiously states that the relief represents una croce simile (ma solo con due figure) tra le cinque principale Reliquie della Basilica. . . . Danielle Gaborit-Chopins entry in Treasury of San Marco (above, n. 24), no. 34, 24448, likewise cautions against a direct identification. For a more emphatic identification, see Pincus, Christian Relics, 4243, and Krause, Immagine-reliquia, 216. For the identification of the cross reliquary on the panels right as that of Irene Ducas, see Pasini, Tesoro, 3; Pincus, Christian Relics, 43; Krause, Immagine-reliquia, 216; Klein, Heiltmer von Venedig, 2:8012. 65 The reliquaries represented on the relief have been identified as such by Hahnloser, Tesoro (above, n. 29), 140; Pincus, Christian Relics, 43; Krause, Immagine-reliquia, 216; and Klein, Heiltmer von Venedig, 2:799800. 66 Archivio di Stato, Venezia. Commemorali, Reg. 24 (157384), 17374. The full text of this letter, which was first published in Cornaro, Eccleasiae Venetiae antiques, 10:23236, was most recently included as an appendix in Pincus, Christian Relics, 57.

Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 12001400

215

Franciscan monks in obtaining official papal acknowledgment of the events described.67 Interestingly, Enrico Dandolos name does not appear anywhere in the ducal letter. Instead, the transfer of the miracle-working relics from Jerusalem to Venice via Constantinople is attributed to divine agency working through Saint Helena and ultimately through Christ himself, who wanted the relics of his divine presence on earth to be placed with those of his evangelist Mark.68 The rank and importance of the three relics mentioned in the ducal letter is confirmed two decades later by the earliest surviving inventory of San Marco, compiled in June 1283, and by a second one, dated 5 September 1325.69 In both inventories, a crystal ampoule containing the Holy Blood and a relic of True Cross take pride of place as the first items listed.70 The relic of the skull of Saint John the Baptist and its precious container, on the other hand, are no longer listed in immediate proximity to these more important relics of Christ.71 In the inventory of 1283, for instance, the relics precious but damaged container is described as item 8: Item capseleta una fracta cum pezoletis de argento in qua credimus fuisse caput Sancti Jo. Baptistae cum fuit in igne,72 thus indicating that even the treasurys custodians were no longer certain whether the relic was, in fact, still preserved inside this container. The same ambiguity is revealed in the inventory of 1325, in which two relics and reliquaries of the head of Saint John the Baptist are described. The first one is listed as item 6: Item de capite Sancti Johannis Baptistae, in quadam capsicula argenti deaurata, cum literis de nielo circundata et cum figuris in cohopertura.73 The second reliquary is listed a few lines below as 9: Item habemus in alio superiore canto, versus austrum, capseletam unam fractam cum quibusdam pezioletis argenti, in qua similiter esse credimus de capite s. Johannis Baptistae, quae fuit in igne.74 The preserved inventories of San Marco from 1283 and 1325 thus seem to indicate that Raniero Zenos effort to promote the three miracle-working relics of 1231 was not entirely successful even in Venice, at least as far as the relic of Saint John the Baptist was concerned.67 In Debra Pincuss groundbreaking study of the San Marco relief, the ducal letter features prominently as evidence for the socioeconomic and political climate in which the relief was created. See Christian Relics, 39 and 4450. 68 Ibid., 57: qualiter dictae Sanctae Reliquiae de Hierusalem, per operam Sanctae Helenae in Constantinopolim fuerunt deportate, et qualiter Dominus noster Jesus Christus ipsas in Civitate Venetiarum cum corpore beati Marci, Evangeliste sui, voluit collocari. 69 For the full text of these inventories, see Gallo, Tesoro (above, n. 6), 27375, 27687. 70 Ibid., 273 (nos. 12) and 276 (nos. 13). 71 In the inventory of 1283, the relic of Saint John the Baptist is ranked 8, following a number of yconae and a cumulative reference to other saintly relics and a relic of the crown of thorns, which had been deposited in the treasury of San Marco in 1239. See ibid., 27374. 72 Ibid., 274 (no. 8). 73 Ibid., 276 (no. 6). 74 Ibid., 276 (no. 9).

216

HOLGER A. KLEIN

Instead, another saints relic seems to have gained prominence during the last decades of the thirteenth or early fourteenth century, namely, the arm relic of Saint George. Not listed in the inventory of 1283, it is first described in the inventory of 1325 as enclosed in gold and silver and worked in enamel, with a Saint George on horseback at the top and with a base worked in silver.75 Listed immediately after the Holy Blood and the wood of the True Cross, the relic of Saint George is thus clearly one of San Marcos most venerated treasures. It is followed in the inventory of 1325 by another relic of the True Cross that is identified as having been in the fire of 1231 and being preserved in a silver-gilt container with images of Constantine and Helena and the relic of Saint John the Baptist, likewise contained in a silver-gilt reliquary inscribed in niello and with figures on its lid. As the first five relics described in the inventory of 1325 seem to match the relics depicted on the treasury relief in both identity and number, and the inventorys description of the relic of Saint George furthermore matches the relics precious container as it survives today (fig. 6.12), two preliminary conclusions may be drawn. First, the surviving Venetian reliquary for the arm of Saint George, with its translucent enamel decoration, busts of Old Testament prophets, and crowning statuette of the saint on horseback, predates the inventory of 1325.76 Second, the treasury relief was most likely created between 1283 and 1325 to promote the five most venerated relics in the treasury of San Marco, four of which were soon afterward associated for the first time with Enrico Dandolo and the events of 1204. Whether or not the reliquaries depicted in the relief were indeed dispatched from Constantinople by Enrico Dandolo is impossible to determine with certainty. As mentioned above, the first reference to such a gift is made in the 1340s in the chronicle of Andrea Dandolo, whose eagerness to associate the greatness of Venice with its doges efforts to endow the city with sacred relics has already been pointed out. Given the absence of earlier references to such a gift in Raniero Zenos letter of 1265 and the early inventories of San Marco, it may not be too farfetched to assume that Andrea Dandolos claim for his predecessors involvement in the translatio reliquiarum was, once again, a product and expression of his own political agenda. It may be suggested that Andrea Dandolos attempt to associate San Marcos most venerated relics with Enrico Dandolo takes Raniero Zenos effort to propagate the basilicas miracle-working relics a step further by75 Ibid., 276 (no. 4): circumdatur auro et argento laboratum ad smaldum cum uno Sancto Georgio equitante a parte superiori et cum uno pede argento laborato. The previous entry (no. 3) describes the relic as being kept in the same container as the relic of the True Cross: in qua capsela est brachium S.i Jeorgii circundatum argento albo. See also Pasini, Tesoro (above, n. 63), appendix, 4, n. 4. 76 The horse and rider that currently decorate the reliquary are of sixteenth-century date. See Hahnloser, Tesoro (above, n. 29), no. 159, 16263. See also Pasini, Tesoro (above, n. 63), 44.

Refashioning Byzantium in Venice, ca. 12001400

217

linking divine with ducal agency. In other words, the relics presence in Venice is still attributed to divine agency, but its presence is now working through the doge, who sent the relics from Constantinople to San Marco, just as Helena previously sent them from Jerusalem to Constantinople as a result of divine inspiration. This is not to say that Enrico Dandolos involvement in the transfer of relics is pure fiction. On the contrary, his involvement is historically quite probable. The fact, however, that the first reference to Enrico Dandolos role in the transfer of these relics is inserted in Andrea Dandolos Chronica extensa may be considered an attempt to establish the doge of Venice as the primary instrument of Gods divine will to ensure the prosperity of the Republic for the immediate and distant future. While the lack of thirteenth-century sources attesting to Enrico Dandolos involvement in the acquisition and transfer of sacred relics may seem surprising, it should be acknowledged that most surviving accounts of the looting of Constantinople and the transfer of its relics to Venice are lacking early evidence. In fact, many of them are likewise first mentioned in Andrea Dandolos Chronica extensa, revealing the doges keen interest in recording the provenance of Venices most praiseworthy and distinguished sacred treasures. Apart from Enrico Dandolo himself, who is credited here with the acquisition of the citys most prestigious relics of Christs Passion, Saint John the Baptist, and the holy martyr Saint George, less prominent members of the Venetian nobility, clerics, merchants, and mercenaries are likewise remembered in Andrea Dandolos chronicle for increasing the citys spiritual wealth by increasing the number of its holy bodies.77 The relics of Saint Anastasios the Persian, for instance, were allegedly removed from a Constantinopolitan church dedicated to Saint Lukelocated close to the church of Saint Mokiosby a Venetian named Andrea Valaraesso shortly after 1204 and soon transferred to the church of Santa Trinit in Venice.78 The fact that the saints body exuded a wonderful scent when arriving in Venice was77 On the objects and issues in question, see Klein, Heiltmer (above, n. 61), 699736. 78 On the relics provenance, see Dandolo, Chronica extensa, 92.2730. See also F. Cornaro, Ecclesiae Venetae antiquis monumentis . . ., 13 vols. (Venice, 1749), 4:358; P. Riant, Exuviae Sacrae Constantinopolitanae: Fasciculus documentorum minorum, ad byzantina lipsana in occidentem sculo xiii translata . . ., 2 vols. (Paris, 187778), 2:261. On the church of Saint Luke, see R. Janin, La gographie ecclsiastique de lempire byzantin, I: Le sige de Constantinople et le patriarcat oecumnique, vol. 3, Les glises et les monastres, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1969), 311. On Anastasios the Persian, see B. Flusin, Saint Anastase le Perse et l histoire de la Palestine au dbut du VIIe sicle, 2 vols. (Paris, 1992). According to the pilgrimage account of Archbishop Anthony of Novgorod, the head of Saint Anastasios was already stolen prior to the conquest of 1204. See M. Erhard, Le Livre du Plerin dAntoine de Novgorod, Romania 58 (1932): 4465, here 60. See also P. Riant, Des dpouilles religieuses enleves Constantinople au XIIIe sicle et des documents historiques ns de leur transport en occident (Paris, 1875), 19899; idem, Exuviae, 2:262. Whether the head of Saint Anastasios now preserved at Aachen is the very head stolen from Constantinople is difficult to assess. See Canossa 1077Die Erschtterung der Welt: Kunst und Kultur am Anfang der Romanik, ed. C. Stiegemann, 2 vols. (Paderborn, 2006), 2:45051, no. 537.

218

HOLGER A. KLEIN

interpreted as a sign of his approval of his new resting place.79 Another holy body, whose translation to Venice was an immediate result of the plundering of Constantinople, was that of the prophet Symeon mentioned in the Gospel of Luke. Two Venetians named Andrea Baldovino and Angelo Drusiaco removed the prophets relics from an oratory of the Virgin near Hagia Sophia, sent them to Venice, and deposited them in Saint Symeons church on the Rialto.8